Rigging the election for beginners

posted at 1:01 pm on January 26, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

It’s starting to look as if this may become a reality, at least in some locations. Three states with Republican controlled legislatures which Barack Obama carried in the last election are already looking at a proposals to change their electoral college split from winner takes all to a division by congressional districts. As we’ve previously noted, this would give the GOP a decided advantage in several key states for the next presidential election, even if they once again lost the popular vote.

Nebraska and Maine now award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and the other two to the statewide winner. If other states were to follow this model, it could dramatically change the way Americans elect their president. In the current political climate, it also could put Democrats at a disadvantage in states Obama won but where Republican legislatures drew congressional district lines to maximize GOP performance.

I’ve gone into this before, but everything about this looks bad. It’s not that it’s unconstitutional or illegal in any fashion, but the image is about as horrible as you can get. Granted… this could work. It might even win a presidential election which repeated recent patterns for the Democrats. But at what cost? It seems as if both sides are rushing to either justify or condemn this without any long term consideration. For example, Professor Jacobson.

While awarding electors by congressional district may favor Republicans now in some states, it may favor Democrats in the future, just as the winner take all favors Democrats now. To take a temporal view and declare it “cheating” shows that the accuser is politicizing the issue just as much as the alleged cheaters.

Republicans are picking and choosing different systems in different states, with not even a pretense that they’re doing it for any reason aside from choosing whichever system benefits Republicans the most in each state. This is so obviously outrageous that it’s likely to prompt a backlash.

I don’t think either of these stances addresses the real point here. While perfectly legal, this is such an obvious, national move as to be absurd. The other two states currently doing this EC vote splitting decided on it as a rather odd, unique, grass roots initiative. To suddenly have several swing states launch into it right after losing an election is so clearly a case of national level manipulation that it will further inflame national sentiment against a party which is already sliding in national approval. Is that really how you want to win for one or two cycles? Isn’t it better to make a solid case for conservative values and win on the merits?

Angering the larger public with sleight of hand tricks to take the White House with a losing popular vote margin seems short sighted in the extreme. Most of my arguments against the Electoral College reflect the fact that it distorts the wider public vote. Some hijinks like this could get the Electoral College voted out all the sooner. Maybe it buys you one or two election cycles, but if you really value the EC, the long term fallout could be far worse.

Maine and Nebraska are not, in my opinion, examples to be emulated. They are cautionary tales to be avoided unless it’s done on a national scale. It is, as I previously wrote, a situation with no easy solution. We don’t want to tell the states what to do on their own turf, but when they vote for the President, they are taking part in a national effort. The system would work best if it was standardized – either way – across the country. Or, absent that remedy, just doing away with the electoral college entirely.

The prospects appear doomed in Virginia this year for Republican-backed legislation that would replace the state’s winner-take-all method of apportioning presidential electoral votes with one that awards one vote to the winner of each congressional district.

Virginia is the first of several states carried in November by President Barack Obama where the Republican-controlled legislature is considering measures to replace the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. The Virginia legislation survived a state Senate subcommittee on a 3-3 vote this week, but two Republicans on the full committee said Friday they would oppose the bill when it comes up for a committee vote next week, effectively killing it.

And should it clear the legislature, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell announced Friday he opposes it. Spokesman J. Tucker Martin said McDonnell, a Republican, “believes Virginia’s system works just fine.”

Florida doesn’t look interested either. I’ll be waiting to see how the other states handle it. This is nothing to rush into.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

They can even eliminate the popular vote altogether should they so choose and send electors to vote for the person of the Legislature’s choice.

You’re overlooking the second and third degree outcomes.

Where EC changes are made to affect the outcome of the presidential election, the prevailing majority in the state legislation will dictate how the vote is counted from one election to the next. Where the GOP changes the vote today by its legislative majority, the Dems will reverse the change upon winning the state back.

You’ll see big money politics transform state elections, as those races will become the key to winning nationwide office.

The entire EC system will lose much of its legitimacy and US democracy will be widely mocked around the world as hardly above what you find in banana republics. Much of this country’s moral authority and soft power as the world’s great democracy will be lost as well.

The entire EC system will lose much of its legitimacy and US democracy will be widely mocked around the world as hardly above what you find in banana republics. Much of this country’s moral authority and soft power as the world’s great democracy will be lost as well.

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Lots of words for something that could have been said in one or two sentences. You’re one of those pukes that thinks you can impress with a volume of words. Well at least this time it wasn’t the words:

Not surprising that you continue to carefully study my posts and carefully weigh the meaning behind every precious word. I’ll try to keep lower IQ readers like you in mind when composing sentences and considering the use of multi-syllable words.

Looks like the Wiley Coyote wing of the Republican Party is at it again. Their last great idea was voter suppression, disguised as “voter ID”. Remember how that turned out? People stood in line for hours to vote.

That Republicans feel they have to resort to this tactic to win elections, they are conceding that they are losers.

Brayam the fact is you have three or four common themes in all of your posts. You really don’t bring a whole lot. You’re actually pretty entertaining from the standpoint of your bloated view of yourself.

You’re overlooking the second and third degree outcomes.Where EC changes are made to affect the outcome of the presidential election, the prevailing majority in the state legislation will dictate how the vote is counted from one election to the next. Where the GOP changes the vote today by its legislative majority, the Dems will reverse the change upon winning the state back.You’ll see big money politics transform state elections, as those races will become the key to winning nationwide office.The entire EC system will lose much of its legitimacy and US democracy will be widely mocked around the world as hardly above what you find in banana republics. Much of this country’s moral authority and soft power as the world’s great democracy will be lost as well.bayam on January 26, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Ok Brayer. Let’s say PA and VA goes thru with it. How on earth will future politicians ever snatch it back to reinstate winner takes all? They can’t because once the rurals have tasted the fruit of their votes actually counting for an ECV or delegate, they are not going to allow their CD change the system. the winner take all system is for a government by the establishment, for the establishment. This is why JS is against it and tries to scare us away from taking the power by calling it voodoo elections. When the truth is that it would stick the needle of death into the establishment. For them, it’s easier to manipulate for 51% of a state than 51% of every district. voting is not a zero sum game, but many don’t play because they rightly deduce it’s not worth the effort if their views don’t matter. Also the same reason that the urbans are so enthusiastic that 120% come out to vote.

I actually propose something that is in place in CA and LA. A jungle primary. Only the top two candidates run for President. This would eliminate 3rd party spoilers like Gary freaking Johnson, who single handedly cost Romney at least FL. and all the other vanity loonies running.

My biggest problem with Jazz and others who pine for a popular vote winner is that they ignore several facts. Not all votes are equal and if you want a national winner, you have to accept a national recount.

Different states have different rules for who can legally vote. Unless you want to completely usurp this authority for Presidential elections and have a standard rule for felons and age across the board, you cannot say that a popular vote is fair. What would stop California from adding a couple million voters by lowering the voting age there to 15?

And if you don’t have strong, standardized and enforces elections governance, how can you say that when X wins over Y by a few thousand votes, that it was not miscounting of the vote in AL, where Y won by a wide margin but should have won by more that, that wasn’t the cause? And why should you give a corrupt group in ONE states the ability to affect the results for ALL states?

And I do not see the problem with changing to the ME/NE model. I would think that swing states would be the IDEAL place to start. These are the states where the largest groups feels that they have no say in the election and where local dominance most affects turnout. Ask any Philly Republican.

It might also reduce the inherent physical advantage that urban areas have over rural ones. Much easier to run a ‘GOTV’ shuttle when it is down the block than when you have to drive miles for each voter.

Frankly, I an not a fan of using a popularity contest to pick a candidate or leader. I think the quality of our candidates has declined since we moved more towards primaries in the 60’s( There are exceptions).

Why can’t republicans just legislate that they should be declared the winners no matter what? Then they wouldn’t have to deal with this democracy nonsense and they could just implement their agenda without having to win elections.

In many states, the cities are the key to any election. I’m originally from Western Massachusetts which, when I lived there was more conservative than Eastern Massachusetts. We still ended up with Democrats all over the place and mostly because of the big cities. Springfield had over 125,000 people but it took 4 or more of the surrounding community to equal Springfield’s vote.

However, all is not lost. By the time Obama and company are done, the cities will be broke, the states will be broke and the country will run out of rich people to tax. Then, and only then, will people understand that you just can’t afford this stuff.

Looks like the Wiley Coyote wing of the Republican Party is at it again. Their last great idea was voter suppression, disguised as “voter ID”. Remember how that turned out? People stood in line for hours to vote.

That Republicans feel they have to resort to this tactic to win elections, they are conceding that they are losers.

chumpThreads on January 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM

.
Citizens who can’t handle the burden of acquiring state photo ID for themselves are UNWORTHY TO VOTE … period.

I’ve gone into this before, but everything about this looks bad. It’s not that it’s unconstitutional or illegal in any fashion, but the image is about as horrible as you can get.

Screw image. The left hates us anyway and I’m tired of worrying about how “it looks”, or worse, the “optics”. We need to fight like the lefties do. They will lie. cheat and steal to win. This business about us being “better than that” has gotten us where we are today. No more Mr Nice Guy. Fight fire with fire.

A majority of less than 10% while the greatest wealth producers vote for left-leaning candidates.
Forbes is not Pravda. SpaceX is not socialist.

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 4:34 PM

What do you mean by greatest wealth creators?… One company ExxonMobil creates more wealth than Apple, Microsoft, and Google combined… inf act $ 200 billions dollars more than these three companies combined… Also most wealth creators are really the small and middle businesses and a majority of them vote Republicans… SPaceX? You mean this left wing businessman who wants the taxpayers to fund him?… Sorry but I will stay with NASA if the taxpayers need to pay for space technology and exploration, they have a very good record until Obama came and want them to focus on muslim outreach…

And those wealth creators that vote left are the biggest hypocrites on the planet because all the “left wing ideology” they advocate such as paying higher taxes they not only do not do but they find every trick under the sun… Such as Google sheltering 10 billion dollars overseas to pay less taxes or Warren Buffet who is suing the IRS for a billion dollars because he does not pay the taxes due for one of his companies… Microsoft and Apple use slave labor in India and China to make their profits…

“Winner take all” is the obviously unfair method. I’m wondering who invented it? It denies localities the results of their votes — and anyone who is in favor of local power would oppose it in an instant.

Mr. Obama did not win reelection by 60%-40% — no, it was 51-47% — which gives him a plurality of 2.5%.

That should have also been the ratio of votes accorded him in the Electoral College. He would still have won, but he’d probably be a lot more circumspect in his behavior.

For them, it’s easier to manipulate for 51% of a state than 51% of every district. voting is not a zero sum game, but many don’t play because they rightly deduce it’s not worth the effort if their views don’t matter. Also the same reason that the urbans are so enthusiastic that 120% come out to vote.

AH_C on January 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Indeed. Its much like the direct election of senators aka the 17th ammendment. That took away the power of the state governments having a say in the federal scene. It also meant you don’t have to buy off voters in state (or region of a state) but a whole legislature.

Gotta hand it to Hotair, I didn’t expect them to cover this story. Good job for not sugar coating it either.

I do however want to point out that the Virginia proposal differs from the Nebraska split in that the 2 electorals tied to the senate goes not to who wins the state’s PV, but who won in the most districts.

Seriously, Jazz, awarding Electoral votes by Congressional district and awarding then the 2 at-large votes(for the Senators) to the winner of the State is probably the fairest way to maintain the Electoral College and more closely align Presidential elections with the way the voters vote. Why should a candidate win all of say California’s Electoral votes by squeaking out a 50% to 49% win? By awarding the Electoral votes per Congressional district suddenly a Democrat candidate would have good reason to campaign in certain districts in Texas and elsewhere in “Red” country. Conversely a Republican candidate would have a reason to campaign in certain districts in California and elsewhere on the Left Coast. The Presidential election would get a heck of lot more competitive, and unpredictable. Voters that in the past that could be safely ignored would suddenly get courted. Instead of swing states, there’d be swing districts. Congressmen that could deliver their district would be in high demand (and make the President more beholding to Congress as the Founders intended). What’s not to like?

Is this any less transparent than the RNC deciding to now support raising taxes, legalizing marijuana and gay marriage, and “comprehensive immigration reform” (i.e. creating a pathway to citizenship) after two crushing losses? Seems to me a lot of people are saying, “change, just not that”. I agree the optics don’t look good, but neither does the electoral map where large urban areas tend to decide elections.

How votes are determined is up to the individual states.
The federal government has taken on more of an activist role in elections by allowing politicians to manipulate this country by using census data to determine outcomes that are closer to the popular vote rather than which candidate wins the most districts. A practice that I think should be stopped in its tracks.
Our census collecting practices should stop dividing our nation into groups of genders, races, and colors. Justice must be blind.

States that decide per their constitution to choose local candidates by winner takes all majority votes are certainly with in their right to do so. Even if the outcome when two candidates are neck & neck, or three or more candidates divide the votes so that no candidate can win with 51%, or more. The wisdom of this process can be debated. However, it certainly is up to the state election boards whether they want to spend tax payer money doing recounts and holding costly special elections.

I do not like the popular vote deciding the presidential election because this means that the most populated cities will always decide the vote, thus, giving no voice to those outside the ever expanding urban sprawls.

Voters that in the past that could be safely ignored would suddenly get courted. Instead of swing states, there’d be swing districts. Congressmen that could deliver their district would be in high demand (and make the President more beholding to Congress as the Founders intended). What’s not to like?Tarnsman on January 27, 2013 at 1:13 AM

Because JS works, or used to, for a NY congresscritter. Therefore anything he says pro or con on election processes or politics for that matter should be taken with a grain of salt. Squishiness is strong with this one.

So the GOP is basically saying, if you choose to live in a rural county your individual vote should count more than an American citizen who lives in an urban county. How is that conservative again?libfreeordie on January 26, 2013 at 9:30 PM

For a professor you’re pretty retarded. Just as conservative as a small state having 2 senators, same as a large state. It’s called a republic and designed to prevent the excesses of democracy where 51% can decide to steal from the 49% . If you really cared then let’s go back to the original 1 rep per 35k voters.we’d have thousands of reps and with technology we don’t need them to ever go to DC except as tourists. They’ll draft bills from home and conference via video and vote via a secure darkness. Beck you could even be elected to represent your neighborhood, what’s not to like?

Lets see. We have a demoncrat party that gauges everything they do solely on political terms. And when we begin to fight back its the end of the world!!
Well I don’t think so.
Anything that can stop the march to communism by the left is A OK with me.
I’m sick and tired of the one way street where everything benefits the socialists and we are left holding the bag.
Look at a map of who votes for whom and where.You will discover that just a few big cities and a few much smaller geographic areas on both coasts are deciding the political layout for the rest of us. And we don’t like it one bit!
Take away undue influence by the sanctuary cities that are populated with illegals voters to begin with and huge metropolis “obama” cities destroyed for years by a liberal reign and all of a sudden elections take on a whole new look.

Take away undue influence by the sanctuary cities that are populated with illegals voters to begin with and huge metropolis “obama” cities destroyed for years by a liberal reign and all of a sudden elections take on a whole new look.

rodguy911 on January 27, 2013 at 6:39 AM

Amen to that.
Speaking of cities destroyed (not to make light of destruction left by Sandy). But, the political response and the actual slow speed of the work it takes to rebuild should be enough to wake a few lib-tards up from their trance induced fantasy that big government will actually take care of them.
My wake up call came when I was 19 and lost my union job. The union was all talk and no action.
I became an independent thinking individual, cut my own path and moved to a right to work State (Atlanta,Georgia) and found opportunity everywhere.
Michigan went on to became the first State to enter what was in reality a depression due to union controlled commie-esque labor rules.
For a perspective of the time (much like today) watch Michael Moore’s Roger & Me (I know yuck) and you’ll realize how fast the top gets blamed when the bottom feeding dependents put their trust in big Union and Big Government. Moore totally missed the irony and blamed CEO Roger Smith. Not once did he link it to union greed, or the importance of the individual.
The dependents in our nation have put us on a thin skinned bubble and it’s ready to pop.

Did the Dems worry about “optics” when they trashed the greatest healthcare system in the world? Did they worry about “backlash” when they lied and bullied Republicans to take away more of our hard-earned property to satiate the demands of his big city base?

No.

Yet I’m supposed to worry about such things and sit idle while an overreaching government steals more of my liberty and property each day? This gives conservatives a better chance at winning the presidency and is 100% Constitutional. Politics isn’t 2-hand touch – get with it, Jazz.

When you consider the election fraud in the big cities, and the margins that they can gain that overwhelm the rural areas and suburb, I support this. This makes election fraud harder, just as everything the Democrats are doing makes election fraud easier. For that reason alone, this is good, very good.

I don’t believe this nation is founded on the premise that large population centers should oppress the nation.

I don’t believe our founders envisioned for us a voting environment in which the validity and the strength of the individual vote would be diluted and nullified to the point of apathy due to criminality and outright corruption and that one of two national party’s would actually nurture that exact despicable scenario.

I don’t believe this nation is founded on the premise that large population centers should oppress the nation.

I don’t believe our founders envisioned for us a voting environment in which the validity and the strength of the individual vote would be diluted and nullified to the point of apathy due to criminality and outright corruption and that one of two national party’s would actually nurture that exact despicable scenario.

Speakup on January 27, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Our founders did foresee the problems you note. That is why women did not get the right to vote, they have been known to be emotional rather than thinking in their base nature, sorry women, but it is just facts. That is why the people without skin in the game were not allowed to vote, you actually had to own a business or land in order to vote.

There are just too many allowed to vote in this nation… As of now, half are leeches.

Requiring ID to vote is NOT voter suppression – well unless you are talking about suppressing the illegal vote, the duplicate votes and voting of the dead. There is little you can do these days without an ID, including renting a video, so your blatant lie even if repeated ad nauseum is not worth the space it took to write it.

I see nothing wrong with getting rid of the EC period. One vote per person legally qualified, national popular vote wins.

Requiring ID to vote is NOT voter suppression – well unless you are talking about suppressing the illegal vote, the duplicate votes and voting of the dead. There is little you can do these days without an ID, including renting a video, so your blatant lie even if repeated ad nauseum is not worth the space it took to write it.

I see nothing wrong with getting rid of the EC period. One vote per person legally qualified, national popular vote wins.

katablog.com on January 27, 2013 at 10:48 AM

“Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” –Mike Turzai.

Voter suppression in the guise of “voter ID” was a deliberate strategy by Republicans to hold down Democratic votes in the election. You can tell by the states that insisted on a photo ID and those that rejected student IDs. Then there were the threatening billboards set up in minority neighborhoods.

Yeah, it was attempted voter suppression pure and simple.

Now, after gerrymandering congressional districts, the Republicans will simply go for outright vote rigging to win. The last gasp of a Party that cannot win on ideas or philosophy.

I agree, the federal interference with voting, in terms of the 17th amendment and the voting rights act has fostered fraud. When the feds say if you yell at your wife you lose the right to bear arms, but you don’t need to prove citizenship to vote, something is wrong.

If blacks are too dumb to get an ID card, then no wonder Democrats are desperate to get them to vote, as they rely on idiots who will fall for their crap.

But then again, don’t they think that these same vulnerable people deserve the right to bear arms, and aren’t ID’s and high fees and background checks and training an onerous burden for enjoying 2nd amendment rights?

Hey, l2g, I’ll bet you were a big fan of the poll tax as a way to determine who was worthy to vote.

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Oh, cry me a river next time you have to show ID to purchase pseudoephedrine or get a library card or purchase a drink in a bar (which, from the maturity of your posts, sounds like you still do). Voter ID is a tool to prevent fraud, period, and is used throughout the big world outside the US without controversy. The only people who argue against it are libs who want to protect their voter base of illegals, felons and dead people.

The more I hear of this electoral vote change strategy, the more I like it. Having lived through the ridiculous tantrum our Texas Dems threw over legal redistricting, leaving the state to illegally prevent voting on it, the more in favor I am to out maneuvering them in their endless, seemingly unchecked, flouting of actual law. If we can use a legal process to do it, go for it. And if Dems can use it when they are a majority, then as the majority they will have the right to do so.

Citizens who can’t handle the burden of acquiring state photo ID for themselves are UNWORTHY TO VOTE … period.

listens2glenn on January 26, 2013 at 10:17 PM

.
Thanks for confirming my point.

The whole idea of “voter ID” as enacted by Republicans, is to place a burden on voters as a disincentive to go the the polls. Notice the “photo” requirement, which ratchets up the burden a little more

And as a bonus backhand, those who fall prey to the scheme are de facto unworthy of exercising their right to vote!

Hey, l2g, I’ll bet you were a big fan of the poll tax as a way to determine who was worthy to vote.

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:33 AM

.
The whole idea of voter ID, is to prevent FRAUD. There’s no reason for a “poll tax”, as it has nothing to do with disproving legal citizenship.

I reject outright any premise that implies “lower income people can’t afford the cost-burden of obtaining a state photo ID”.

Lower income people still engage in regular daily business activity that absolutely requires a state photo ID, and by that I mean:

“Poor people on welfare and other fixed income have ALWAYS had state photo IDs.”

The only reason for rejecting voter ID is to allow legal voters to vote multiple times, or allow illegal voters to vote at all (probably multiple times as well).
This is NOT going to happen again. Either we will get elections conducted in a way that we can all trust the results, or the “worst case scenario” will unfold.

Either you think “that’s a bluff”, or you don’t give a damn.

With the mental attitudes, that those citizens (includes politicians) on your side of this debate approach it, you’re leaving us no other options.

The fair, sane solution for Ohio is to return to the way it was before George Soros’s monkeywrenchers screwed things up. The only possible reason the Buckeye state has an election MONTH instead of an election day like the rest of the country is because it’s a traditional swing state and having a prolonged election season is harder to police. Obama’s victory in Ohio is highly suspicious to anyone who cares about a clean electoral process and clearly the Democrats like it that way. But too bad, cheating time is over. Ohio needs an election DAY!

The GOP cannot police election fraud in big cities where in essence they have no influence. This measure would protect the state electoral awards from being determined by massive fraud in the cities. Those districts are going Blue anyway so they can cheat their heads off if they wish but it will only effect statewide elections not national ones.

The EC was designed as a last ditch effort to prevent a tyrant from becoming president. Man, you start tinkering with something as long-standing as the EC, then what else???? Besides the Dems considered this I believe in the 1990’s and then said no.

This is the real problem in this country.
Hardly anyone is voting compared to how many could vote.
Americans are spoiled & apathetic & have left the governing & leadership jobs to the people who showed up.
Meanwhile, the good leaders stay home bcs they’re too busy oftentimes being selfish.
Though I’ll grant people kudos like Palin who tried & failed bcs they were so vilified they never had a chance.
The media set the stage for them to fail.
We here at HA probably all vote. But the people who should vote have convinced themselves their vote doesn’t matter so why bother.
This is disgraceful & we honestly as a people do not deserve our Liberty if we cannot even get off the fracking couch to go vote.
And Liberty is certainly dead when no one will even run for local offices who could go real good bcs they ‘don’t want to get involved’.
I see this time again here in SW ND. I would run for the screwl board myself to change things even tho it’s a pain in the butt. But I work there & cannot. So I encourage others whom I think would be good leaders.
And guess what? They shrug their shoulders & give up. Bcs they have become hopelessly apathetic.
I despise this almost as much as I do nasty liberals.

Now, after gerrymandering congressional districts, the Republicans will simply go for outright vote rigging to win. The last gasp of a Party that cannot win on ideas or philosophy.

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:16 AM

This is just flat out wrong. Empirical evidence (Nebraska voting history) shows this to be an advantage for Democrats in red states. Nebraska hasn’t voted D since 1964, yet with this system, Obama picked up 1 EV in 2008 despite losing the whole state by 15% to McCain.

Districts have to be re-evaluated and redrawn by law. Don’t get your panties in a twist because Republicans are better at local politics and are in control when districts happen to be redrawn.

Win state elections and governor races and you get to redraw districts. Stop crying about a practice that has been in place since nearly the beginning of our elecion system. Also, I am sure that Democratic super-majority in California would never dream of redrawing their districts to split red voting areas and keep themselves in power, right?

The whole idea of “voter ID” as enacted by Republicans, is to place a burden on voters as a disincentive to go the the polls. Notice the “photo” requirement, which ratchets up the burden a little more

And as a bonus backhand, those who fall prey to the scheme are de facto unworthy of exercising their right to vote!

Hey, l2g, I’ll bet you were a big fan of the poll tax as a way to determine who was worthy to vote.

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Yet you would probably argue that registration requirements and restrictions on lawful gun owners is for “gun safety” and not just to place a burden on gun owners as a disincentive to won a firearm. Those who fall prey to the scheme are de facto unworthy of exercising their right to bear arms.

The GOP cannot police election fraud in big cities where in essence they have no influence. This measure would protect the state electoral awards from being determined by massive fraud in the cities. Those districts are going Blue anyway so they can cheat their heads off if they wish but it will only effect statewide elections not national ones.

KW64 on January 27, 2013 at 7:16 PM

.
If we concede that election fraud cannot be “policed” ANYWHERE in the U.S. (including the big cities), then we’re only left with two horrific options.

The whole idea of “voter ID” as enacted by Republicans, is to place a burden on voters as a disincentive to go the the polls. Notice the “photo” requirement, which ratchets up the burden a little more

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:33 AM

.
Yet, you would probably argue that registration requirements and restrictions on lawful gun owners is for “gun safety” and not just to place a burden on gun owners as a disincentive to won a firearm. Those who fall prey to the scheme are de facto unworthy of exercising their right to bear arms.